[bamboozled]

Yeah, I'd personally like to here why passive investing 1~6 million dollars would be a bad idea, you might not get bill gates rich but I can't see it going horrible either. Sure you'd likely want to take some risks but it feels like you'd somehow remain well off so long as you kept reinvesting some of the profits you make.

[thephyber]

> but I can't see it going horrible either.

Any type of investing can do horrible. Examples: you trust a financial expert who swindles you, you invest everything in a dying company/industry/company/asset class, you don’t rebalance or diversify, you don’t take advantage of accounting or tax law shelters.

You comment seems to imply that you are making unstated assumptions.

[creer]

Pretty good illustration, thanks.

You mention "passive investing" and imho that's a good answer if you want minimum involvement of either yourself or a manager (say because you don't trust them - and you shouldn't).

But then in the same breath you mention "Sure you'd likely want to take some risks" and THAT is not an answer to the same parameters. Why? How much? What kind? With what personal involvement? Etc. Elsewhere you hear "multi-family housing", or "chain of laundromats". All these are one-sentence answers which come either from some random book (which might be very exciting, and not an investing education), or from the experience of someone (who may be lucky, or may be an expert in laundromat operation, perhaps both. May even have written a book or a blog.)

But wait, why is "passive investing" such a good answer, for that very specific circumstance? Because everyone says so? (except the people who say "real estate") Because I say so? So actually "passive investing" is the same kind of answer as "laundromats". It's a lazy pick, out of what floats around HN. I feel it's a fine answer IF minimal management is the priority. And IF you are going to say "Sure you'd likely want to take some risks", then it probably isn't.

And IF "passive investing" only, then how much do you withdraw? Why? "Surely you can't be too wrong if you withdraw 1% a year"? Really? But what if withdrawing 4%, or 8% meant a significant improvement to your life?

And let's question "minimum involvement"? Why is that a priority? Because you don't trust yourself or a manager? But shouldn't there be more considerations? Like how much spending would significantly improve your life? Like are you the kind that always worries about paying a mortgage?

To summarize: these are "shoot from the hip" answers which consider really very little of what deserves to be considered. Why should it considered? Well, How many work days - that is how much of your finite lifetime - does it take for you to save free and clear 1 million? Now that we have this number, how much does the 1 million deserve? I'm not trying to send people in a tailspin of decision paralysis. I'm pointing out that investing is a bit more complicated than "laundromats". I'm also not recommending that you become a professional fund manager while you are at it. There are extremes and the optimum (thinking and learning time) is nowhere near "passive investing"'s zero.

(And the context here is family wealth disappearing. If you are 9 years old, say, nobody is asking you.)